Pass the Corona ese... Novel Corona aka COVID-19

[metronome]

I listened to this the other day.  It's a few weeks old now but still some interesting discussion:

 

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/covid-19-china/

[Mercer]

[KILZ FILLZ]

Goddamn I missed diners. Hitting a greasy spoon on the wknd is one of my favorite things to do. Lil mom n pop operation in Ocean Beach. I hope they are able to make their rent. They could only have customers in like a third of their tables to maintain the 6 ft  rule.
 

 

 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

On 5/20/2020 at 11:17 AM, misteraven said:

@Hua Guofangwhats your findings on whether this was natural or man made? I've seen some compelling discussions both ways. Also, what's the primary source(s) for your position on that detail?

 

I've largely tuned out of the Covid conversation. Been trying to focus on my circle of control and considering my lifestyle, I'm going to bet my life on the fact that I'm probably among the least likely to be medically affected. Rather put my efforts towards financial stability / prosperity, which what I was doing anyways. Seems to me this thing has been politicized to death and back and dead again and we're still sitting at pretty insignificant numbers IMHO from a global perspective. I am curious where it'll go and obviously both interested and concerned about the non medical aftermath of this, most especially the side of it that has to do with new legislation and impacts on individual liberty and freedoms. Posted this a little ways up, but this podcast is the first time since pretty early on that I've been concerned... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-survival-podcast/id284148583?i=1000473909022

 

 

In any case, just wondering if there's any semblance of a consensus on whether the thing was engineered or not.

I continue to listen to this guy and I'm still not 100% positive I like him. However, the points made and the general tone of the show has really influenced my fucks given about this bullshit. Simple math, even though I am terrible at, makes so much sense when he said it. Something about how this whole thing has affected around 1% of the entire population, and how we're never going to shake hands again because of it being such a joke. For some reason, and I haven't fact checked it, but I should, the no more hand shakes because of 1% is just a giant eyeopener. I was already off this shit weeks ago. But after that line, which I lol'd pretty hard at, I just can't look at anything the same. Go on hikes with my daughter and walk passed people who step to the side of the trail to lift their masks, we kind of do the same but it's strictly out of courtesy now and I just feel so incredibly retarded. It's complete bullshit and I am straight up embarrassed at how crazy I was 2.5 months ago. Don't come at me brOs. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by NightmareOnElmStreet

[Kults]

8 hours ago, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

I continue to listen to this guy and I'm still not 100% positive I like him. However, the points made and the general tone of the show has really influenced my fucks given about this bullshit. Simple math, even though I am terrible at, makes so much sense when he said it. Something about how this whole thing has affected around 1% of the entire population, and how we're never going to shake hands again because of it being such a joke. For some reason, and I haven't fact checked it, but I should, the no more hand shakes because of 1% is just a giant eyeopener. I was already off this shit weeks ago. But after that line, which I lol'd pretty hard at, I just can't look at anything the same. Go on hikes with my daughter and walk passed people who step to the side of the trail to lift their masks, we kind of do the same but it's strictly out of courtesy now and I just feel so incredibly retarded. It's complete bullshit and I am straight up embarrassed at how crazy I was 2.5 months ago. Don't come at me brOs. 

I think many people are coming around and starting to see it this way too. 

[morton]

I still have compassion and concern for the elderly and vulnerable, 100,000 people have died in the US, that I have a statistically solid chance of not joining them does not really negate my position.

 

There was some demand earlier in the thread for pictures of bodies stacking, this piece by the NYT has a couple good shots, I like the one of homeboy smoking a cig rolling in the casket covered by a moving blanket.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/magazine/funeral-home-covid.html

[Kults]

1 hour ago, morton said:

I still have compassion and concern for the elderly and vulnerable, 100,000 people have died in the US, that I have a statistically solid chance of not joining them does not really negate my position.

 

There was some demand earlier in the thread for pictures of bodies stacking, this piece by the NYT has a couple good shots, I like the one of homeboy smoking a cig rolling in the casket covered by a moving blanket.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/magazine/funeral-home-covid.html

i feel for them too. it’s still a far cry from the end of days apocalypse many believed  it was just a few short months ago. not naming names or pointing fingers but go back and read earlier comments in this thread and see for yourself 

[morton]

I am not interested in going back in the thread, 100,000 in like four months is pretty impressive and gives credence to the modelling that indicating a death toll of around 2 million if unmitigated. It is also not over. 

 

Certainly not "complete bullshit" but a genuine tragedy, and to point out that some thought it would be worse is even less productive than pointing out that some thought it was a complete hoax invented by liberals and the media to hurt conservative political momentum. 

 

It seams like your position is not solid, that perhaps you are conflicted in your feelings about the pandemic and its political ramifications. On the one hand you post memes equating mask wearing with homosexuality and on the the other you express genuine concern, I suppose that you may be trolling part time but not all the time or employing the troll tactic of backing down and then ramping up?

 

If I am following correctly you are a Canadian Conservative, and perhaps have some ideas that the US and Canada are maybe a little closer that they actually are. 

 

I really do try to not engage in political stuff online, in part because it is so often a complete waste of time but also because I do not have the patience or quick writing skills to keep up the fight. 

 

 

[Kults]

I'm not a Canadian Conservative. I lean right on many issues but have never voted Conservative. You say you don't get into politics but go straight to that? No one said it was complete bullshit, now you're just being hyperbolic and taking the piss. Wasn't pointing you out by saying many were panicking but now I'm thinking you were probably one of them.

 

Truth is that camp will never admit they got scared and over reacted, you're doing it right now. The go to response for those who think a complete lockdown remains justified is along the lines of "can you imagine how much worse it would have been if we didn't?!' Maybe. Hard to know that for sure. My position is not 'solid' because unlike some, I adjust my view and perspective as more info becomes available, instead of digging in and saying some shit that will look retarded a few months later. 

 

 I absolutely enjoy trolling those who are easily riled up. If you get in your feelings about a meme, that's your right but I really couldn't care less, sorry. Truth is I can't even remember what meme you're talking about, I post so many. 

[Mercer]

We should panic,

 

I'm warning everyone now how dangerous the financial decisions currently being made are before the effects start to kick in. The government is covering their ass so they don't get blamed "if" (when) the virus kills off  a significant number of people. These people are set, they won't suffer, you will.

 

Don't count on:

• Food supply chain
• Unemployment benefits
• Your job/employment situation
• even your "secure" government, or gov. contracting job
• and most importantly the petro dollar, or any other fiat currency holding it's value moving forward

I'm not joking. Good luck.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Mercer

[Kults]

I know we'll be paying for all this for a long ass time

[Kalashnikov]

My roommate/cousin works in retail. I have been at home, minus one quite extensive store trip about a month ago where I went with mask, gloves, at like 6am. When they opened up restaurants and bars on May 18th, my roommate's idiot coworker decided that drinking at home wasn't fun anymore and just absolutely had to go to the bar. Of course, the bar was packed with other morons.

 

Yesterday, said coworker came into work with a fever and cough. They sent him home. So here I sit, hoping I don't get sick within the next week or so. Just goes to show how this isn't a, "it's my choice, if you don't like it you can stay home while I go out" thing. Your actions effect people besides yourself.

 

With most states opening up either this week or next, I can't wait to see the surge in cases 2 weeks from now.

[Dirty_habiT]

On 5/22/2020 at 4:38 AM, morton said:

The old pepsi logo was way better.

Millenials are destroyers of everything good.

 

I say millenials did it.  The pepsi owner's grandson was fresh out of graphic design class at the local CC and granpappy hooked him up with a sweet position in the company as senior director of marketing.

 

[Kults]

Just now, Dirty_habiT said:

Millenials are destroyers of everything good.

 

I say millenials did it.  The pepsi owner's grandson was fresh out of graphic design class at the local CC and granpappy hooked him up with a sweet position in the company as senior director of marketing.

 

that sounds about right 

[Kults]

“Lockdowns have no basis in science, Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has said, and the approach of most countries to wait for a vaccine is futile because of the uncertain time it will take to develop one. Lockdowns harm people's wellbeing and the economy, and the public can be relied upon to be responsible and maintain social distance, the government has said. In the long run, Swedes will take less time to develop greater immunity and avoid a second wave, Tegnell has said.

So far, it appeared as if Sweden's policy was paying off. Despite discovering its first case on January 31, Sweden had fewer cases than its neighbour Norway - which discovered its first case nearly a month later - right up to March 31. Even among the affluent, high-performing Nordic countries, Sweden appeared to be doing well.”

 

Sweden seems to be doing alright 

[misteraven]

14 minutes ago, Kults said:

“Lockdowns have no basis in science, Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has said, and the approach of most countries to wait for a vaccine is futile because of the uncertain time it will take to develop one. Lockdowns harm people's wellbeing and the economy, and the public can be relied upon to be responsible and maintain social distance, the government has said. In the long run, Swedes will take less time to develop greater immunity and avoid a second wave, Tegnell has said.

So far, it appeared as if Sweden's policy was paying off. Despite discovering its first case on January 31, Sweden had fewer cases than its neighbour Norway - which discovered its first case nearly a month later - right up to March 31. Even among the affluent, high-performing Nordic countries, Sweden appeared to be doing well.”

 

Sweden seems to be doing alright 

Sweden mostly got it right. Mistake they made was not shutting down access to retirement homes early on. They recognized that mistake too late and adjusted for it, but if you were to eliminate the deaths at the. retirement homes, they'd statistically be far ahead of most places spite not having shut down.

 

Likewise, Cuomo in his arrogance made the same mistake, but in a bigger way. He actually legally required retirement homes to accept people that were diagnosed positive or that were suspected. He's since tried to walk back from that, but the actual transcripts are still available for the press conferences in which he emphatically stated it all. Dude should be brought up on charges. In any case, when you take the shit show of NYC and its surrounding areas out of the equation, the death toll is hardly a mouse fart in context of what was broadcast to everyone these last few months. Once again we're seeing the CDC revise statements that are at or near opposite of previous statements. We can speculate about whether its them learning more or them no longer able to keep with the same bullshit stories.

 

Here's two things that have come up in more mainstream outlets this week.... 1. The official death rate now sits at 0.26% of those infected, so officially a fraction of a fraction of the 1%, which was what we discussed months ago. 2. That its pretty much fact, considering guidelines on the DCD's own website, that a far broader swath of deaths is being reported, than what is accurate since CDC guidelines are asking hospitals to classify suspected deaths as positive for Covid, as well as anything having to do with respiratory. That's in addition to incentivizing hospitals in various ways, which really brings up the question as why they might do such a thing... A rabbit hole we can only begin to understand, which will be quickly swept under the rug as soon as the next crisis appears.

 

Read somewhere today (haven't verified), that the state of California has seen more deaths via suicide since this began, than Covid and that suicides are surging in comparison to normal metrics.

 

At this point (and perhaps much longer), I really don't give a shit. To each their own... Wear a mask if it makes you feel better, go without if you're okay with the fraction of a fraction of 1% chanced you'll die for this. Only thing this experience has done beyond showing me where I might wan to shore up a few weak spots in my game, is that people are going to continue the same path regardless... Pick a side, hang on to whatever narrative their *team* has rallied behind and keep fighting with each other at the expense of their own personal well being. Amazing to see, but starting got boring to watch more than a few weeks ago, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

[Drue_Down]

[KILZ FILLZ]

On 5/26/2020 at 8:49 AM, Kults said:

that sounds about right 

 

[misteraven]

Just updated the credit thread in the Jekyll Island group regarding an interesting opportunity I stumbled upon as a result of some of the government mandates in response to Covid-19. 

 

Go check it out... Worth your time.

 

https://forum.12ozprophet.com/topic/88067-primer-credit-the-good-and-the-bad/

 

[Hua Guofang]

On 5/27/2020 at 1:59 AM, Kults said:

“Lockdowns have no basis in science, Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has said, and the approach of most countries to wait for a vaccine is futile because of the uncertain time it will take to develop one. Lockdowns harm people's wellbeing and the economy, and the public can be relied upon to be responsible and maintain social distance, the government has said. In the long run, Swedes will take less time to develop greater immunity and avoid a second wave, Tegnell has said.

So far, it appeared as if Sweden's policy was paying off. Despite discovering its first case on January 31, Sweden had fewer cases than its neighbour Norway - which discovered its first case nearly a month later - right up to March 31. Even among the affluent, high-performing Nordic countries, Sweden appeared to be doing well.”

 

Sweden seems to be doing alright 

How do you measure success, though?

 

Sweden has the 6th highest known deaths per capita in the world. That is a much, much higher count compared to other countries like Finland, South Korea, Norway, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia, etc., who had greater control of movement than Sweden.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeADemocracynow(2020) dvegas1?

I would remove the micro-states from the link immediately above as their populations and territories are so small compared to other countries that they become statistical outliers.

[Hua Guofang]

On 5/26/2020 at 2:55 AM, Kults said:

Truth is that camp will never admit they got scared and over reacted,

 

The go to response for those who think a complete lockdown remains justified is along the lines of "can you imagine how much worse it would have been if we didn't?!' Maybe. Hard to know that for sure.

Not speaking for people in this thread, more so for those in emergency/crisis management - when you have a threat that could be catastrophic you don't have much chance but to over-react, because the costs of under-reacting are potentially much higher than the costs of over-reacting. That's not to say that over-reacting is without serious consequences, of course.

 

There will be a lot of work in the coming years to analyse how better to have a localised response than we did this time. Two points: this was new to everyone, so there will be a lot of mistakes made. There shouldn't have been this many mistakes made as govt all over the world had been warned to prep for a pandemic for decades and that wasn't done. We do surveys of national security priorities among the professionals pretty often and biosecurity is always in the top three priorities.

 

There is a very clear case to be made for lcokdowns slowing the spread, though. Of course, there is a lot of work to reach a disprovable conclusion as yet, but it's pretty hard to argue that just going about your daily life as if there was no pandemic wouldn't have increased the deaths per million.

 

Sweden is interesting as people seem to be arguing that they didn't have lockdowns and they're ok. That misrepresents two issues: they are not ok, they have a very high deaths per-capita. Secondly, the govt may not have locked down but normal life did not continue as people are trying to make out. It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of social interaction took place in Sweden (was there a lot of WFH, did people still attend religious gatherings with no distancing, how were the elderly treated, what is the average age of the populations, etc. etc.) and what kind of deaths per capita did they get and how does all this compare with countries that did lockdown, that didn't lockdown, etc. etc.

[Kults]

50 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

There is a very clear case to be made for lcokdowns slowing the spread, though. Of course, there is a lot of work to reach a disprovable conclusion as yet, but it's pretty hard to argue that just going about your daily life as if there was no pandemic wouldn't have increased the deaths per million.

No one said daily life should have just resumed or gone on as normal. I think protective measures and isolating the vulnerable are good policy. Shutting down the economy not so much. You readily admit there is no solid data based conclusion on how the lockdowns affected the rate of the spread yet, then you say the death rate would have been increased by millions? Slowing the spread, of course I agree but at what cost and by how much? No one has that answer yet that I know of.

 

50 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Sweden is interesting as people seem to be arguing that they didn't have lockdowns and they're ok. That misrepresents two issues: they are not ok, they have a very high deaths per-capita. Secondly, the govt may not have locked down but normal life did not continue as people are trying to make out. It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of social interaction took place in Sweden (was there a lot of WFH, did people still attend religious gatherings with no distancing, how were the elderly treated, what is the average age of the populations, etc. etc.) and what kind of deaths per capita did they get and how does all this compare with countries that did lockdown, that didn't lockdown, etc. etc.

They're 2 ranks above the US (with full lockdown). Doesn't mean much if you don't add all kinds of variables and context

[Hua Guofang]

2 minutes ago, Kults said:

No one said daily life should have just resumed or gone on as normal. I think protective measures and isolating the vulnerable are good policy. Shutting down the economy not so much. You readily admit there is no solid data based conclusion on how the lockdowns affected the rate of the spread yet, then you say the death rate would have been increased by millions? Slowing the spread, of course I agree but at what cost and by how much? No one has that answer yet that I know of.

 

They're 2 ranks above the US (will full lockdown). Doesn't mean much if you don't add all kinds of variables and context

Agree with first point. I also did not make my argument as you've written it here - granted, you quoted me in your post but I did not claim that deaths WOULD have increased by millions. I clearly said that there is still a lot of work required to come to a conclusion on that, but suggested what the conclusion would likely be.

 

As to second point - the US lockdown came waaaaay too late to be a useful comparison. Try comparing it to New Zealand and Australia that did lock down early. Also compare it to their neighbouring countries, Finland and Norway which did lockdown and have similar demographics. That would be a much more valid comparison. Secondly, Sweden may not have closed its border, but given that all its neighbours did the effect was the same as if its borders were closed.

 

But I agree, that there are many variables to consider yet, which I covered in my final paragraph.

[Hua Guofang]

Just to note, as well, as I've said in other posts, I think there will definitely be lessons to be learned here about responding to localised conditions (when dealing with larger countries and spread out populations) rather than having blanket lockdowns across the whole country. Also, more creative ways to allow for more economic activity to continue under trying conditions.

 

It's actually one of the things Australia did well, was cooperation between state and federal level and localised responses. THe states are starting to bicker and carry on now, as politicians do, but the early responses were suprer-effective and I'd say that having a heavy response early on allowed us to not have high infection/death rates and allows us to open up earlier, quicker and with less chance of a debilitating second wave.

 

Time and analysis will tell.

[Kults]

I mean, you’re not wrong. I can’t refute it. At least not yet until more concrete info comes out and we can make more measured comparisons across the board 

[misteraven]

4 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

There will be a lot of work in the coming years to analyse how b

Ha! Admire your optimism man. 

 

4 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Sweden is interesting as people seem to be arguing that they didn't have lockdowns and they're ok. That misrepresents two issues: they are not ok, they have a very high deaths per-capita

You need to look at the situation and analyze the deaths that occurred as you can’t make a blanket statement like that as you yourself are misrepresenting, or at least misunderstanding, the situation. 
 

The mass majority of deaths occurred amongst the most vulnerable of their population, as well as were concentrated to specific locations: Old people, often with medical conditions at retirement homes. If you eliminate that from the death toll, it drops them to near nothing. The Swedish government, unlike dickhead Cuomo, actually acknowledged that they fucked that bit up. That they should have locked down retirement homes and isolated that segment. Had they done that one, logistically easy thing, the numbers would have been vastly different with all other things being equal as nothing got locked down. It’s easy to just skim the overall tally and write them off but if the goal is a genuine review of what worked and what didn’t, you need to look at more than top line numbers and jump to conclusions. 

[Hua Guofang]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

Ha! Admire your optimism man. 

 

You need to look at the situation and analyze the deaths that occurred as you can’t make a blanket statement like that as you yourself are misrepresenting, or at least misunderstanding, the situation. 
 

The mass majority of deaths occurred amongst the most vulnerable of their population, as well as were concentrated to specific locations: Old people, often with medical conditions at retirement homes. If you eliminate that from the death toll, it drops them to near nothing. The Swedish government, unlike dickhead Cuomo, actually acknowledged that they fucked that bit up. That they should have locked down retirement homes and isolated that segment. Had they done that one, logistically easy thing, the numbers would have been vastly different with all other things being equal as nothing got locked down. It’s easy to just skim the overall tally and write them off but if the goal is a genuine review of what worked and what didn’t, you need to look at more than top line numbers and jump to conclusions. 

But hang on, those people DID die and Sweden DIDN'T lock the nursing homes down, that's what happened. Sweden does have one of the highest deaths per capita. You can say that they coulda done this and they coulda done that, but the point remains that they didn't. Historical counter-factuals are irrelevant.

 

Plus, it was only half the death toll from retirement homes, not the vast majority like you have said and the People running the show did not expect anywhere near the deaths that they've had: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sweden-coronavirus-per-capita-death-rate-among-highest-2020-5?r=US&IR=T  It does not disappear to near nothing like you claim.

 

Plus, before you talk about misrepresenting anything, please read what I'd already posted above. I don't think that it's up for questioning that I'm aware of the complexity of the issue: 

It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of social interaction took place in Sweden (was there a lot of WFH, did people still attend religious gatherings with no distancing, how were the elderly treated, what is the average age of the populations, etc. etc.) and what kind of deaths per capita did they get and how does all this compare with countries that did lockdown, that didn't lockdown, etc. etc.

 

I also note that you have not answered the question of how to judge what a successful response is, if deaths per capita is not it.

 

I look forward to reading that soon.

[misteraven]

Not the breakdown I saw elsewhere but let’s continue using your data set. 
 

As I understand your statements, you’re arguing that not shutting down the country is a mistake that led to Sweden having among the highest per capital deaths and therefore prioritizing the economy and leaving the country open was a mistake. 
 

We do in fact have hind sight here with Sweden and with the rest of the world. Our goal is learn what worked and consider effective solutions moving forward.

Going off your article, Sweden is ranked #6, so “among the highest” is subjective here. The list shows 17 countries and according to their data set, it appears that the numbers drop off so low, it’s not worth listing more countries (never mind questioning the validity of many of the reported numbers like China or Russia). Regardless, to be #6 in a list of 17, with the remaining being statistically  insignificant numbers (or they’d be on the list) isn’t “among the highest” if we’re having an honest discussion. It’s sensationalizing things to make a specific point (which still counters reason). 
 

If we omit the deaths at retirement homes, a mistake the Swedish government has the courtesy to admit (unlike scumbag Cuomo that actually forced the mistake), we eliminate 50% of deaths according to this same article and according to that same data set, Sweden drops to 11th on a list of 17 of deaths per capita. 
 

So as the world wrestles with how to move forward, why would you not analyze what worked and what didn’t, utilizing all available information, so we can make the most informed decisions possible moving forward? Because one facet of Sweden’s response was poorly considered, you think we should disregard the rest of what happened?

 

And indeed, the social interaction is very important. I’ve brought that point up before regarding the shit show that was Italy. We should certainly consider that as well any any potentially significant localized (not simply National) differences and implement protocols accordingly. 
 

But my point was / is, countering your response, that Sweden left their entire country open and it mostly worked. They should be top on that list by a long shot according to virtually every health organization and MSM outlet since every other country locked down completely. Wasn’t Belgium initially praised for having locked down entirely very early and I think also Netherlands? I believe there were even memes posted, if memory serves, implying that they were better off because their health ministries were run by women. Yet both ranked worse per capita, which is evidence that those countries had a worse response and points to a conclusion that total lockdowns certainly weren’t the right solution. Those countries had higher per capita death tolls and now are subject to massive economic damage to add insult to injury. 
 

We could also go deeper into this line of discussion and assess the broader toll of locking a country down. Here in the USA we’re seeing spikes in suicides, child molestation and all sorts of nasty shit that comes from locking people down for months. 

 

My point, obviously, is that what Sweden did actually prove out that not locking the country and it’s economy down was a better move among a bad situation and has they adjusted very slightly by taking a fairly obvious logical decision to instead quarantine a tiny subset of their population - an easy move that would have near zero impact on daily life or their economy - they’d have fared exceptionally well. Seems obvious that the world should be looking at that example and reviewing how they might improve their response moving forward.*
 

 

 

*Biting my tongue to not go down the rabbit hole of speculation that perhaps the health of the population and reinstatement of the economy isn’t the goal. That in the USA, the $7 trillion that went I to the ether, the huge majority of which didn’t go to the people, isn’t somehow a bigger driver in what is actually happening out here. 
 

 

 

 

 As such can see that

[Hua Guofang]

@misteraven

 

IT was posted in this thread that Sweden did the right thing. My response was to wonder how that can be judged. So I looked at what their measurable stats were and out of 200 odd countries, they were #6 with the highest death per capita. So I want to know, if deaths per capita isn't a good standard of a successful strategy, what is?

 

I note that still nobody has answered that questions yet.

 

The response, from you at least, has been to ignore 50% of the deaths that occurred, like that is somehow a legitimate way to understand an outcome. Those people died, bro. Their deaths are a concrete outcome of the strategy Sweden had in place, so they cannot be removed from the equation.

 

Sure, it's important to understand these lessons for the future, but we're talking about what has already happened here. We're talking about what Sweden did this time and how one of the highest deaths per capita can be seen as a successful outcome. If deaths per capita is not a good measure of a successful strategy in a pandemic, what is?

 

And BTW,, Sweden's economy is still being hammered - they had high deaths AND their only likely going to be a couple of percentage points better in how much their GDP contracts than their neighbours, who did lock down and had many, many less deaths.  https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e

 

So, high rate of death AND the economy is still getting fucked.

 

I am really keen to know how you measure a successful strategy if it's not rate of deaths and economic health.

 

If high death and a hit to the economy is what a good outcome looks like, what does a bad outcome look like to you?

 

 

 

* I don't know about Belgium or Netherlands, but I'm not arguing that they had a successful strategy or not. I'm just asking why people think Sweden's strategy worked when their deaths are high and their economy is still suffering.

** I fully acknowledge that we can't trust numbers from countries like Russia, China, DPRK, etc.

[Kults]

2 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

The response, from you at least, has been to ignore 50% of the deaths that occurred, like that is somehow a legitimate way to understand an outcome. Those people died, bro. Their deaths are a concrete outcome of the strategy Sweden had in place, so they cannot be removed from the equation.

They aren't though. As he explained if you remove the retirement homes and isolated people at risk the death toll would have been much, much smaller. Its disingenuous to use those inflated stats based on one segment of the population to support your argument for a full lockdown.